HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog294
'"
.~
Page 1 of2
Michelle Farfan
From: AI Scalf
Sent: Friday, November 04,20052:05 PM
To: Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: Port Ludlow Village MLA05-00407
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy McCluskey [mailto:kathymacc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04,2005 1:49 PM
To: AI Scalf
Subject: Port Ludlow Village MLA05-00407
Please accept this email as part of the official record regarding the above project. My husband and I are owners
of Unit #364 in the Admiralty II condominiums. We have the following concerns regarding the project:
1. Density. We understand that the project was originally approved for 58 units and that the current request is
for between 82-89. We believe that this violates the Master Declaration of the CC&R's for Ludlow Bay Village
that limits residences to 53 town homes and 5 single family residences. People move to Port Ludlow in part for
the open space. The proposed density is way too high for this area. What has changed since the prior approval
of 58?
2. Traffic and parking. We ask that all requirements for road width, sidewalks and length of driveway be
adhered to with no exception. The current townhouses exit their garages almost directly onto the street. This
will become even more dangerous as more town homes are built. Developments that allow parking on the street
are those that looke trashed almost immediately. Look at the small homes development in Poulsbo where
inadequate parking was required. There should be a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit and not
one behind the other. Tandem parking never works as envisioned.
3. Lagoon. It is our understanding that the DOE has ruled that over-water construction is prohibited. Please
following this ruling and the Shoreline Management laws in relationship to the lagoon. There is plenty of
property to build on around the lagoon and not over.
4. We have heard a number of amenities discussed from museums to teen centers. The best amenity the
developer can provide is open space and park like settings.
5. Recreation Center. It appears that the LMC can minimally keep the recreation center going with current
dues. To develop a new recreation center that would siphon off current dues and new dues only creates a
hardship for current users. W ould't it make more sense to enhance what we have rather than create something
new.
6. The Admiralty III proposal should require a separate filing as a long plat. No detail has been submitted by
PLA for review. No EIS has been conducted. There are significant groundwater problems in the area to
consider.
7. The maintenance facility proposed in the area of the Admiralty condo's should not be adjacent to nor viewed
from the current housing.
11/5/2005
LOG ITEM
p~g~ q L _of. a--
,.
"
Page 2 of2
.
.
8. The proposed location for the Helipad is possibly the worst location imaginable. It creates traffic issues
when in use, diverts helicopters over housing units and would be unsightly. We want the entrance to he
complex to be aesthetically pleasing. A helipad is not aesthetically pleasing.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
Kathleen & Terry McCluskey - 140 Admiralty Lane #374, Port Ludlow
With MSN Spaces email straighttoyourblog. Upload jokes, photos and more. It's free!
11/5/2005
of~